Guest Opinion: Think through all costs and benefits of energy choices

Offshore wind, hydroelectric imports, fading coal plants, nuclear safety, pipelines from New York? Energy politics in Massachusetts — and all of New England — would struggle to be more complex or convoluted than they are at the present time. As southeastern Massachusetts reckons with power transition, as the Patri...

Comment

By Joel Wool

The Herald News, Fall River, MA

By Joel Wool

Posted Jul. 20, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Updated Jul 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM

By Joel Wool

Posted Jul. 20, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Updated Jul 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM

» Social News

Offshore wind, hydroelectric imports, fading coal plants, nuclear safety, pipelines from New York? Energy politics in Massachusetts — and all of New England — would struggle to be more complex or convoluted than they are at the present time. As southeastern Massachusetts reckons with power transition, as the Patrick administration pushes for state legislation that would facilitate the import of Canadian hydropower, and as the six New England states advance a regional tariff that would charge all residents on their gas and electric bills to fund the expansion of fracked gas pipelines, there are important questions for all of us to consider.

What are the financial, environmental and health impacts or benefits of any energy policy decision? Who bears the cost or reaps the profit? The Herald News' recent editorial on offshore wind rightly captures one critical aspect of the current energy debate: laudable efforts by southeastern Massachusetts officials to protect and grow the clean energy economy in the region. Much of the need to defend the state’s renewable energy originates with proposals for the procurement of Canadian hydropower, an area which warrants further scrutiny.

It is critical to understand that while some careful hydro imports could enhance energy diversity in ways that benefit both environment and economy in Massachusetts, excessive imports, or imports by the wrong means, could have immense unforeseen consequences for ratepayers, local entrepreneurs, and for the planet.

One of the worst-case scenarios is exemplified by current form of the Northern Pass project. A July 9 article in the Boston Business Journal implores all stakeholders to examine the price tag of energy policymaking, and careful analysis should indeed be extended.

As Conservation Law Foundation notes, the emissions from the construction of dams and transmission for the Northern Pass’ “Clean Energy” resources could equal close to that of a gas-fired power plant for the next decade, while presenting a potential cost of $800 million to New England ratepayers. We need a standard for clean energy that upholds our state’s commitment to act on climate and a financial acumen that exhibits far less risky behavior.

Massachusetts and its neighbors are also facing immense industry pressure to “overbuild” gas infrastructure in the region, and the Patrick administration, while claiming it has not endorsed any specific project, is supporting a regional charge on all New England residents to do just that. To be clear, the most prominent project, a pipeline proposed by Kinder-Morgan, is an enormous vehicle for fracked gas which would run through conservation land in western and central Massachusetts as well as ample private property. The administration’s non-endorsement of gas pipelines is disingenuous, as the tariff might on its own provide evidence of need when this project, or any other, goes for federal approval.

Over 100 organizations recently signed a statement calling on New England’s governors to rethink this vast gas expansion, citing alternatives which include enhanced coordination of gas and electric markets, interim use of existing fossil fuel infrastructure, enhancing efficiency, pursuing renewable thermal heat, and devoting resources and time to study the alternatives before acting rashly. This is a reasonable — and loud — call to measured approaches which should be heeded. Either way, it will be heard: residents opposing the pipeline and tariff are now leading a walk across the state ending in Boston on July 30.

Page 2 of 2 - Amidst all this, the resilience, collaboration, and energy of southeastern Massachusetts should be commended. Renewed commitment from community residents and municipal and state officials to tackle power shift head-on is a beacon of hope. While it is only one of many possibilities to stimulate a diverse and vibrant economy, hats off to Somerset and New Bedford if offshore wind power can lead the way toward revitalized community economies. The rest of the state would do well to support this growth rather than stifle it.

For the region at large, let’s be sure that the energy choices to which we commit ourselves are made with full regard to their short- and long-term costs and benefits.

Joel Wool is Advocate for Energy and Environment with Clean Water Action.